Alalaakkola appealed this decision. The February 2024 Court of Appeal judgement held that Alalaakkola should have exclusive legal rights over her artworks for various reasons, including: 1) Her art was something personal to the artist, and 2) She wanted to handle her artworks’ commercialization. Palmer had said he planned to copy and sell his ex-wife’s art pieces.

Jenni Rutter, a partner at Dentons Kensington Swan in Auckland, agrees with the Court of Appeal ruling. However, she also understands why individuals who create for a living may find the decision objectionable. She explained that the current law in New Zealand provides that intangible assets created during a qualifying relationship, such as a marriage or civil union, are under the purview of relationship property rules. The law also recognizes that different types of contributions during a relationship have value. Thus, these things need to be weighed up when a relationship ends.

“The creation of intangible IP assets during a relationship is, in my view, not so different from the creation of other assets that they should be treated as exempt from the law. Nor should the difficulty in valuing them mean they go into the too-hard basket,” said Rutter. She also noted that other intangibles – such as goodwill, a share in a partnership, or reputation – are covered as well.

She continued: “I appreciate that copyright exists in works that are often deeply and inherently personal to their creator, and it may seem disagreeable that copyright is treated as relationship property. However, ownership and control of copyright is often traded in the context of works for hire, licensed works and other commercial exploitation. The Court of Appeal in this decision granted ownership and control of the artist’s copyright to her exclusively, while still finding that the copyright itself was a relationship property asset that needed to be valued and accounted for in the division of property,” said Rutter.